IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
|
|
- Thomasina Maxwell
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: D In the matter between: UNITRANS PASSENGER (PTY) LTD t/a GREYHOUND COUCHLINES Applicant and NUMSA and Members SARPBAC R MAHARAJ N.O. First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Heard: 16 August 2017 Delivered: 21 August 2017 JUDGMENT WHITCHER J [1] In this matter the applicant seeks confirmation of a rule nisi in terms of which the first respondent s members were interdicted and restrained from striking over a dispute concerning an alleged unilateral change to their terms and
2 conditions of employment pending the final determination of the rule. The applicant contends that the change in issue constitutes a change to a work practice and accordingly the workers are not entitled to strike over the change. [2] The applicant operates a long-distance bus transport service for commuters which consists of various routes. The applicant employs bus drivers for purposes of operating these routes. [3] One such route has been running from Durban to Bloemfontein for a considerable time. For such a long distance route [a rota line] two drivers are scheduled, which, according to the applicant, is nothing other than a form of shift rostering. [4] The bus leaves Durban at 19h00 and arrives in Bloemfontein at approximately 05h30 the following morning. On arrival at Bloemfontein the drivers would hand over the service of the route to different drivers to drive the bus to Johannesburg via Kimberly. The drivers who drove from Durban to Bloemfontein would rest for the day and clock in again at about 18h30 in the evening, and at 20h00 commence to drive a bus from Bloemfontein to Durban. [5] In May 2017 the applicant gave notice and discussed with the union that, with effect from 29 May 2017, the Durban to Bloemfontein route will be extended to Johannesburg. For the two drivers from Durban this means that there is no longer a rest period in Bloemfontein; on arrival in Bloemfontein they have to offload and pick up new passengers; they have to continue to drive the bus to Johannesburg via Kimberley; the trip is extended by about 6 hours and they will be on the road for at least 18 hours straight. [6] The drivers have taken issue with these changes. In this regard, the union referred a dispute concerning alleged unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment to the second respondent on 27 May The referral summarised the facts of the dispute as the employer having extended
3 hours of work and stated the result required as worker must revert to the route and hours as per the known norm. [7] The applicant contends that the rest period in Bloemfontein was a work practice and not a term and condition of employment. Moreover, the extension of the trip by about 6 hours merely means that the average weekly working hours has increased from to This does not constitute a change to conditions of employment because it is common cause that the drivers have always been contractually obliged to work 45 hours per week and are paid for 45 hours per week. Furthermore, the fact that the trip takes at least 18 hours does not affect their hours of work or rest periods because there are two drivers - while one drives, the other one can sleep in a private sleeping compartment on the bus. Finally, the latest main agreement includes a R400 per month allowance for drivers due to spread-overs and the nature of hours and shifts worked by long distance bus drivers. [8] It is common cause that the terms and conditions of employment of the drivers are regulated by an Industry Main Agreement. The relevant terms of the Agreement provide as follows: (a) Ordinary hours of work includes all periods during which the employee is obliged to remain at his post in readiness to commence or proceed with his work and all time spent by a bus driver on work connected with the bus or the passengers, but does not include any meal intervals, sleep-over period or any time for which a subsistence allowance is payable to an employee, if during such period, the employee does no work other than remaining in charge of the vehicle. (b) Spread-over means the period in any day from the time an employee commences work until he ceases work for that day, and, in the case of bus drivers, the ordinary hours of work, including the meal intervals where applicable and all overtime, shall on any day be completed within a spread-over of 14 hours. [9] Three important factors emerge from the above. The ordinary hours of work does not exclude the time a driver may spend resting in the private
4 compartment while the other one drives. This makes sense since the drivers cannot be said to be off duty during these periods they are still technically at work in readiness to commence or proceed with [their] work or assist the other driver if necessary. Secondly, the spread-over may not exceed 14 hours. Thirdly, no proper evidence of an applicable subsistence allowance was adduced in this application. [10] To my mind, the changes effected by the applicant constitute a contravention of the Main Agreement in that the spread-over now exceeds the 14 hour limit, and therefore the dispute concerns a compliance issue rather than a change to terms and conditions of employment as set out in the Main Agreement. The drivers terms and conditions of employment are regulated by the Main Agreement and thus remain unchanged. [11] In any event, even if my conclusions are wrong, the issue about whether the applicant s conduct constitutes a change to the drivers terms and conditions of employment is academic and the workers will acquire the right to strike after they have given the applicant 48 hours notice of the commencement of the strike. I say this because the union has not relied on section 64 (4) only in order to assert its right to go on strike. [12] The union referred a dispute concerning alleged unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment to the second respondent on 27 May The referral summarised the facts of the dispute as the employer having extended hours of work and stated the result required as worker must revert to the route and hours as per the known norm. [13] A conciliation meeting took place before the third respondent on 27 June 2017 and a certificate of outcome was issued on the day indicating that the matter remained unresolved. [14] There is a collective agreement between the parties which provides that at least 48 hours written notice of commencement of a strike may be given once a certificate has been issued and a cooling off period of 30 days from the date
5 of such certificate has expired. This application was triggered by the union informing the applicant that it intends to issue a strike notice in terms of this provision once the cooling off period has expired. The strike notice has not been issued as yet. The union is waiting for the finalisation of this application. [15] The important point I make is that the union has followed and intends to continue to follow the pre-strike procedures set out in section 64(1) of the LRA; not section 64(4). [16] Steenkamp J set out the position regarding strikes in terms of section 64(4) and 64(1) in Intercape Ferreira Mainliner (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA and others 1 as follows: [12] This court dealt with the provisions of s 64(4) in Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (Pty) Ltd v SAMWU. 2 It found that the changes implemented by the bus company in that case comprised no more than a change in work practices. It did not amount to a unilateral change in the bus drivers terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, it held, the trade unions representing the drivers did not have the right to strike over a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment in terms of section 64 (4). [13] Discussing that judgment, Grogan 3 commented: The finding that the shift change merely amounted to a change of work practice seems correct. But the court s conclusion that the strike was accordingly unprotected is debatable. Section 64 (4) merely confers on unions the right to demand that employers restored changed terms and conditions of employment for 30 days. Nothing in the LRA suggests that employees may not strike over a change in work practice, even if it does not amount to a change in terms and conditions of employment. [14] Shortly thereafter, on 29 January 2011, Van Niekerk J held in Ram Transport (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU 4 that, in that case, there was no unilateral change to 1 (C179/15, dated 2 April 2015). 2 (2011) 32 ILJ 1107 (LC); [2011] 3 BLLR 231 (LC). 3 John Grogan, Labour Law Sibergramme 1/2011 (13 January 2011) at 6. 4 (2011) 32 ILJ 1722 (LC).
6 terms and conditions of employment. For this reason, the strike called by the union is unprotected. With reference to the comments by Grogan, though, he noted that this is not an uncontested position. [15] Some two weeks later, Van Niekerk J again dealt with Metrobus and SAMWU. 5 Subsequent to this court s earlier judgment relating to section 64 (4), the union had referred a new dispute to the bargaining council describing the nature of the dispute as one concerning a matter of mutual interest. Holding that it could call its members out on strike on that basis, Van Niekerk J remarked (referring to Grogan in a footnote): Steenkamp J was called on to decide only whether the changes in the shift system constituted a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment for the purposes of section 64 (4) of the LRA. This much is apparent from the quote from the judgment in paragraph [3] above. Steenkamp J did not decide, nor was he required to decide, whether the union s members were entitled to demand the reinstatement of the old shift system. [16] And most recently, Gush J pronounced in Apollo Tyres: 6 [T]he second and further respondents may not rely on the provisions of section 64 (4) of the LRA and are required to tender their services in accordance with new shift patterns. This does not, however, preclude the respondents pursuing the dispute regarding the imposition of the new shift patterns as a dispute of interest in accordance with the provisions of section 64 (1) of the LRA. [17] In summary, the position is this: in terms of section 64 (4), the union may call its members out on strike without further ado, and without following the procedures set out in section 64 (1), if the employer unilaterally changes workers terms and conditions of employment. If those changes merely amounted to changes in work practice, it cannot do so. However, nothing precludes the union from declaring a dispute over a matter of mutual interest and calling its members out on strike after having followed the prescribed 5 City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v SAMWU [2011] 7 BLLR 663 (LC) para Apollo Tyres South Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA [2012] 6 BLLR 544 (LC) paras
7 procedures in section 64 (1) and adhering to the time periods prescribed in that subsection. 7 [18] In this case, the union relies on section 64 (4) only in order to assert its right to go on strike immediately. It is therefore important to decide whether Intercape has indeed unilaterally changed the drivers terms and conditions of employment. [17] What Steenkamp J was referring to paragraph 18 of his judgment was the fact that the union in the matter before him had argued that it need not follow the steps set out in section 64(1) in order to embark on a protected strike, that is, either waiting for a certificate stating that the dispute remains unresolved after conciliation, or for a period of 30 days; and then giving 48 hours notice of the commencement of the strike. [18] In this case, the union has followed the prescribed pre-strike procedures set out in section 64(1) and has adhered to the time periods prescribed in that subsection. It has moreover adhered to the procedures set out in the collective agreement. And it has indicated to the applicant that it intends to give the applicant 48 hours notice of the commencement of the strike. [19] The union members have thus elected to rely on the pre-strike procedures set out in section 64(1) to go on strike. Moreover the matter does concern a matter of mutual interest. [20] By following the procedures prescribed in section 64(1) and the collective agreement, the union s members will acquire the right to strike if they give the applicant 48 hours notice of the commencement of the strike. Order [21] The rule is discharged with costs. 7 See also the discussion in Imperial Group (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU (2014) 35 ILJ 3162 (LC) paras
8 Whitcher J Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa APPEARANCES: For the Applicant: F van der Merwe, instructed by Hana Geldmacher Attorneys For Respondents: Harkoo Brijlal and Reddy
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 179/2015 In the matter between: INTERCAPE FERREIRA MAINLINER (PTY) LTD MUNTASHE
More informationCASE NO: J 472/06. (SATAWU) Applicant JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REVISED JUDGMENT (30/06/ 2006) CASE NO: J 472/06 In the matter between: S A Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) Applicant and Natro Fright
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 2228-13 Reportable In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) First Applicant INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL AND ALLIED WORKERS
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J 2834/16 J 2845/16 In the matter between: AMCU AMCU MEMBERS First applicant Second and further applicants
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: J 1251/13 In the matter between: THE LABOUR GROUP THE PERSONS LISTED ON ANNEXURE A First Applicant Second
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2026/13 In the matter between: NATIONAL HOME BUILDERS First Applicant REGISTRATION COUNCIL and NEHAWU obo
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN CHEMICAL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION. D. D SA & OTHERS Second to thirteenth
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN Case no. D 66/99 In the matter between: CHEMICAL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION Applicant D. D SA & OTHERS Second to thirteenth Applicant AND SASOL FIBRES (PTY)
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH Case no: P 272/18 SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION Applicant and AMATHOLE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGEMENT Reportable Case No: JR 738/16 In the matter between: FAMOUS BRANDS MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OBO H CILLIERS JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN not reportable Case No: C36/2010 In the matter between: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant And CARLTON JOHNSON N.O. First
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable In the matter between: Case No: JR 214/2016 CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS
More informationA CRITIQUE OF THE LEGAL TECHNIQUE OF MANAGING ABSCONDING EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH AFRICA
A CRITIQUE OF THE LEGAL TECHNIQUE OF MANAGING ABSCONDING EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH AFRICA INTRODUCTION South Africa is a constitutional democracy and its constitution contains the Bill of Rights in Chapter 2.
More informationHuman Resources Manual Phatshoane Henney inc. 2008
Human Resources Manual Phatshoane Henney inc. 2008 www.cilreyn.co.za P a g e 2 o f 5 1. PURPOSE To ensure the application of consistent, fair and legal industrial action procedures and practices at the
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG EXXARO COAL MPUMALANGA (PTY) LTD MATLA COAL
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case No: JR1288/12 In the matter between: EXXARO COAL MPUMALANGA (PTY) LTD MATLA COAL Applicant And NUM obo STIGLING & ANOTHER First Respondent
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JS 237/15 NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA First Applicant MAMABOLO AND TWO OTHERS Second Applicant and TRANSALLOYS
More informationWhat does the Constitutional Court Case mean for Employers of TES employees??? Table of Contents: NEWSLETTER
HEAD OFFICE - JHB Ground Floor, Wrigley Field Building The Campus, 57 Sloane street Bryanston, 2021 T: 0861 737 263 F: 0861 737 239 CAPE TOWN BRANCH 68Centurion, 13 Kasteelberg Road, The Crest, Durbanville,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL ENTITLED WORKERS UNION. NANA KEISHO NO (Case Management of the CCMA)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE JR 685/02 In the matter between NATIONAL ENTITLED WORKERS UNION Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First
More informationOLGA KOSHEVA AND OTHERS APPLICANT GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE SECTORBARGAINING COUNCIL THIRD RESPONDENT
1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JR 2328/05 OLGA KOSHEVA AND OTHERS APPLICANT AND GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FIRST RESPONDENT MR C S MBILENI N.O
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN CAPE TOWN CASE NO: C 277/05. In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKER S UNION
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN CAPE TOWN 277/05 CASE NO: C In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING AND TEXTILE WORKER S UNION APPLICANT FIRST J HEYNES SECOND APPLICANT AND CADEMA INDUSTRIES
More informationDepartment of Health- Northern Cape
ARBITRATION AWARD Case No: PSHS1162-16/17 Commissioner: Gerald Jacobs Date of award: 16 November 2017 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo Themba N and others (Union/ Applicant) and Department of Health-
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN. JURY JOHANNES MINNY Joint applicants and BURKHARD GOTTSMANN. SMART PLAN CC Respondent JUDGMENT
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Case no: D14/07 and D15/07 Reportable In the matters between: JURY JOHANNES MINNY Joint applicants and BURKHARD GOTTSMANN and SMART PLAN CC Respondent
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Ananthan Sanjivi Dorasamy. In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA O B O WESTWOOD R (Union / Applicant) and
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Case No.: Date of Award: Ananthan Sanjivi Dorasamy PSHS313-11/12 21-Feb-2012 In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA O B O WESTWOOD R (Union / Applicant) and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH:
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH) AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS First Applicant
Page 1 of 9 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO. P180/05 In the matter between: CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION AND OTHERS First Applicant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 853/15 In the matter between: ARMSCOR DOCKYARD, a division of ARMSCOR
More informationNUMSA v Assign Services & Others
NUMSA v Assign Services & Others (2017) 38 ILJ 1978 (LAC) Neil Coetzer Partner, Cowan-Harper Attorneys Research Fellow, University of the Free State Overview Debate over labour brokers has been raging
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Case Number: PSHS200-11/12 (PSHS431-11/12) Commissioner: Abraham Nthako Date of Award: 14-June In the matter between.
ARBITRATION AWARD Case Number: PSHS200-11/12 (PSHS431-11/12) Commissioner: Abraham Nthako Date of Award: 14-June -2012 In the matter between Kramer Wiehmann & Joubert obo Mokgothu & Mofokeng (Union/Applicant)
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN. NEHAWU obo ABRAHAM SMITH
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not reportable Case no: C61/2017 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo ABRAHAM SMITH Applicant and PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SOLIDARITY obo S W PARKINSON
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR2792/12 In the matter between: SOLIDARITY obo S W PARKINSON Applicant and DAMELIN (PTY) LTD COMMISSIONER
More informationMAIN AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: Strike Handling Guidelines
MAIN AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: 2010 Strike Handling Guidelines 2010 MAIN AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: 2010 STRIKE HANDLING GUIDELINES Introduction Members are by now well aware of the dispute which currently
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicant, the Public Servants Association (PSA) on behalf of its member,
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 388/07 In the matter between: PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SA OBO P W J DE BRUYN APPLICANT AND MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY 1 ST
More informationJR169/08/IB/CD 1 JUDGMENT DATE HEARD AND DELIVERED 11 MAY 2010 EDITED 10 JUNE 2010 PPC JUPITER (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
JR169/08/IB/CD 1 JUDGMENT CASE NO JR169/08 In the matter between: DATE HEARD AND DELIVERED 11 MAY EDITED JUNE NOT REPORTABLE PPC JUPITER (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
More informationA CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW ON STRIKES IN SOUTH AFRICA
COLLEGE OF LAW AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES SCHOOL OF LAW TITLE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LAW ON STRIKES IN SOUTH AFRICA STUDENT NAME: MENZI DOUGLAS MBONA STUDENT NUMBER: 209529117 Dissertation submitted to
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Panellist: C S Mbileni Case No: PSHS /14 Date of award: 5 August In the ARBITRATION between: and
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist: C S Mbileni Case No: PSHS1034-13/14 Date of award: 5 August 2014 In the ARBITRATION between: HOSPERSA obo MAKHUBELA Roy V Applicant Party and Department of Health: Mpumalanga
More informationDEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EASSTERN CAPE JURISDICTIONAL RUILING
IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING COUNCIL HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: NEHAWU obo PETROS APPLICANT and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EASSTERN CAPE RESPONDENT JURISDICTIONAL RUILING Background
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN REASONS FOR THE ORDER BRAVO GROUP MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN REASONS FOR THE ORDER Not reportable In the matter between: BRAVO GROUP MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD Case no.: D749/2013 Applicant And VINO
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SAKHEKILE VEZI MAKALIMA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JS 176/09 In the matter between: SAKHEKILE VEZI MAKALIMA Applicant and EDU-LOAN (PTY) LTD Respondent
More informationStay up to date with the latest developments in Labour law EDITION 8/2016. Labour Newsflash
Stay up to date with the latest developments in Labour law EDITION 8/2016 Welcome to the next edition of the Labour Newsflash Labour Newsflash We live in the time of change and innovation. This too has
More informationEMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL AWARD. In the matter of:- Union of Bus Industry Workers. And
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL AWARD RN 288/11 In the matter of:- Union of Bus Industry Workers And (Disputant) Triolet Bus Service Ltd (Respondent) The two parties have jointly referred the dispute for
More informationCONTENTS. Annexure A The law Annexure B Extract from Interpretation Note
INTERPRETATION NOTE 103 DATE: 14 September 2018 ACT : VALUE-ADDED TAX ACT 89 OF 1991 SECTION : SECTION 11(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) SUBJECT : THE VALUE-ADDED TAX TREATMENT OF SUPPLIES OF INTERNATIONAL
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Reportable Case No: D1256/13 In the matter between: PECTON OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS CC and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Reportable Case No: D1256/13 In the matter between: PECTON OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS CC and PILLEMER, B N.O. CCMA THULASIZWE SHOZI & 205 OTHERS Applicant
More informationDECISION AND ORDER Statement of the Case
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS In the Matter of METROPOLITAN CLEANERS & DYERS, INCORPORATED - and - CLEANERS, DYERS & LAUNDRY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 364,
More informationCASE NO: D104/08. Reportable
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN DURBAN CASE NO: D104/08 Reportable In the matter between SOUTH AFRICAN FREIGHT AND DOCK WORKERS UNION (SAFDU) Applicant And SAFCOR FREIGHT (PTY) LIMITED t/a
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not Reportable Case no: C 27/15 In the matter between: MALEBYE URIA TABANE Applicant and I DE VLIEGER-SEYNHAEVE N.O THE PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATING BARGAINING
More informationSECTION 11(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) THE VALUE-ADDED TAX TREATMENT OF SUPPLIES OF INTERNATIONAL AND ANCILLARY TRANSPORT SERVICES
DRAFT DRAFT INTERPRETATION NOTE DATE: ACT : VALUE-ADDED TAX ACT 89 OF 1991 SECTIONS : SUBJECT : SECTION 11(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) AND (e) THE VALUE-ADDED TAX TREATMENT OF SUPPLIES OF INTERNATIONAL AND ANCILLARY
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable Case no: D 285/15 In the matter between: ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Applicant And IMATU obo R NAIDOO THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING
More informationSTATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF HARTFORD -and- LOCAL 1716, COUNCIL 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO DECISION NO. 3792 SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 Case
More informationNEHAWU obo NE BOTUANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- FREE STATE
ARBITRATION AWARD Commissioner: Pieter Venter Case No: PSHS318-18/19 Date of award:14 March 2019 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo NE BOTUANA Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH- FREE STATE Respondent DETAILS
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO Heard in Montreal, January 9, Concerning CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. 4606 Heard in Montreal, January 9, 2018 Concerning CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY And UNITED STEELWORKERS UNION LOCAL 2004 DISPUTE: Policy
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 237/2013 CAPRICORN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY LEPELLE-NKUMPI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT
More informationIN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG HUGH MBATHA COUNCIL OF EHLANZENI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
1 IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE In the matter between: Case No: J1392/2007 HUGH MBATHA Applicant and EHLANZENI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL OF EHLANZENI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT PONTSHO BLESSING MOTSHEKGA
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2245/12 In the matter between: PONTSHO BLESSING MOTSHEKGA Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
More informationAn Act to amend the Pay Equity Act
FIRST SESSION THIRTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE Bill 25 (2009, chapter 9) An Act to amend the Pay Equity Act Introduced 12 March 2009 Passed in principle 2 April 2009 Passed 27 May 2009 Assented to 28 May 2009
More informationTenth meeting of European Labour Court Judges Stockholm, September 2, The Role of Collective Bargaining
Tenth meeting of European Labour Court Judges Stockholm, September 2, 2002 The Role of Collective Bargaining Questionnaire General Reporter: Judge Harald Schliemann, Federal Labour Court of Germany Finnish
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Sanbar Holdings P/L v Queensland Heritage Council & Ors [2007] QSC 116 PARTIES: SANBAR HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 092 408 921) (applicant) v QUEENSLAND HERITAGE COUNCIL
More informationTERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. ISME January 2014 Page 15
TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT The Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 & 2001, which have been in effect since 16 th May 1994, require employers to provide employees with a written statement of certain particulars
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE AND SOUTHERN WISCONSIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS.
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE AND SOUTHERN WISCONSIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS and OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
More informationThe Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan
The Labour Relations Board Saskatchewan INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, HOISTING AND PORTABLE AND STATIONARY, LOCAL 870, Applicant v. RURAL MUNICIPALITY OF WALLACE NO. 243, Respondent LRB File
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No JR 2732/2010 In the matter between: MUSTEK LTD Applicant and JOSEPH TSABADI NO First Respondent THE COMMISSION
More informationSACKETT v. SPINDLER California Court of Appeal 248 Cal. App. 2d 220, 56 Cal. Rptr. 435 (1967)
SACKETT v. SPINDLER California Court of Appeal 248 Cal. App. 2d 220, 56 Cal. Rptr. 435 (1967) MOLINARI, P. J. SIMS, J., and BRAY, J., concurred. MOLINARI, P. J. Plaintiff and cross-defendant, Sheldon Sackett,
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) STRAWBERRY WORX POP (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: 18810/2016 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:YES (3) REVISED 17 JUNE 2016 FHD
More informationsip Case No 451/94 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between MUTUAL AND FEDERAL INSURANCE and
sip Case No 451/94 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between MUTUAL AND FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED APPELLANT and BANKING, INSURANCE, FINANCE AND ASSURANCE WORKERS
More informationWESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE AGENCY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT Western Australia Police Agency Specific Agreement 2013 Page 1 of 9
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE AGENCY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT 2013 Western Australia Police Agency Specific Agreement 2013 Page 1 of 9 1. TITLE This agreement shall be known as the Western Australia Police Agency
More informationCraft, here contests Management's failure to call-him in for. work that day and, it is undisputed, Management made no effort
In the Matter of the Arbitration Between : UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE H8S-5F-C 8027 AND Case No. (A8-W-0656) AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO Hearings Held October 23, 1981 and January 8, 1982
More informationPROPOSED FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS AGREEMENT 2015 TAFE NSW ADMINISTRATIVE, SUPPORT AND RELATED EMPLOYEES
PROPOSED FLEXIBLE WORKING HOURS AGREEMENT 2015 TAFE NSW ADMINISTRATIVE, SUPPORT AND RELATED EMPLOYEES AGREEMENT made the BETWEEN the Managing Director of the TAFE Commission of NSW ( TAFE NSW ) as the
More informationStatutory Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures What s All the Fuss About?
October 2004 Statutory Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures What s All the Fuss About? The Employment Act 2002 ( EA ) established a framework for promoting the resolution of employment disputes in the
More information(Original/ CMA/M/KIN/800/09/1922)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO 154 OF 2010 MTAMBUA SHAMTE AND 64 OTHERS..APPLICANT VERSUS CARE SANITATION AND SUPPLIERS......RESPONDENT (Original/ CMA/M/KIN/800/09/1922) RULING:
More informationPanellist/s: Eddie Tlhotlhalemaje Case No.: PSCB500-10/11 Date of Award: 06 JUNE In the ARBITRATION between:
AWARD Panellist/s: Eddie Tlhotlhalemaje Case No.: PSCB500-10/11 Date of Award: 06 JUNE 2011 In the ARBITRATION between: PSA OBO NORAH METHAPI (Union/Employees) And THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA. N$2.00 WINDHOEK - 19 October 2009 No. 4361
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$2.00 WINDHOEK - 19 October 2009 No. 4361 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 208 Codes of good practice on industrial actions and picketing Labour Act, 2007...
More informationWESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE AGENCY SPECIFIC AGREEMENT 2009 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION PARTIES COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -v- APPLICANT THE CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
More informationANALYSING THE ONUS ISSUE IN DISMISSALS EMANATING FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNILATERAL CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ISSN
Author: R Ismail and I Tshoose ANALYSING THE ONUS ISSUE IN DISMISSALS EMANATING FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNILATERAL CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ISSN 1727-3781 2011 VOLUME 14 No 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/pelj.v14i7.6
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE UNION
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 65/06 [2007] ZACC 10 SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE UNION Applicant versus MINISTER OF DEFENCE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE
More informationEmployment Protection Act (1982:80)
Employment Protection Act (1982:80) Amendments: up to and including SFS 2016:1271 Introductory provisions Section 1 This Act applies to employees in the public or private sector. However, the following
More informationABANCEDISI LABOUR SERVICES
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 857/12 Reportable NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA A KETLHOILWE AND OTHERS (LISTED IN ANNEXURE A ) First
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT 857/12 Case No: Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA A KETLHOILWE AND OTHERS (LISTED IN ANNEXURE A ) First
More informationChaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Du Plessis AJA and Skweyiya AJ
1 of 5 2012/11/06 11:57 AM MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS v LIEBENBERG 2002 (1) SA 33 (CC) 2002 (1) SA p33 Citation 2002 (1) SA 33 (CC) Case No CCT 22/01 Court Constitutional Court Judge Chaskalson P, Langa
More informationSection 64(1)(b) of the Labour
Vol. 22 No. 5 December 2012 Giving notice of strike action Constitutional Court splits in affirming a wider interpretation by P.A.K. le Roux Section 64(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA)
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT TIGER FOODS BRAND LIMITED
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable J2790/13 In the matter between: KLAAS KGOTONG MABALA Applicant And TIGER FOODS BRAND LIMITED Respondent
More informationThe Constitutional Court, TES and sustainable workforce solutions
The Constitutional Court, TES and sustainable workforce solutions A consideration of the NUMSA Assign Services matter and the way forward for stakeholders 1 What motivates the dispute 1. Legal interpretation:
More informationIn the Matter of a Controversy ] ] between ]
In the Matter of a Controversy between INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, UNION LOCAL NO. 1245, Complainant, Arbitration Case and No. 37 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent, (Involving
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTHN AFRICA. In the matter between: Case no JR 832/07 SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTHN AFRICA In the matter between: Case no JR 832/07 SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE APPLICANT LIMITED And G S JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O 1 ST RESPONDENT COMMISSION FOR
More informationRULING IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: AND. Employee/union representative : DAVID SAULS ATTORNEYS ELSIES RIVER 7490
RULING PANELIST : Adv Mosala Matlatle CASE NUMBER : WECT11000-12 DATE : 10 TH DECEMBER 2012 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: LORRAINE GROVE INDINGO BRANDS AND Employee party Employer party Employee/union representative
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 275/17 SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL, CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION C MOENG AND OTHERS First Applicant Second and Further Applicants
More informationProfessional Code of Conduct and Standards of Mutual Responsibility
Professional Code of Conduct and Standards of Mutual Responsibility A program to promote jobsite excellence and customer satisfaction. The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers The
More informationTransportation Demand Management
TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Date: November 26, 2004 Board Members Parks and Recreation General Manager Parks and Recreation Transportation Demand Management RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Board adopt the City s proposal
More informationThis arbitration arises pursuant to the Agreement between the Employer and the
Horowitz #1 IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN: Employer AND Union This arbitration arises pursuant to the 1994-2000 Agreement between the Employer and the Union. The parties concur the grievance in
More informationIn a labor arbitration hearing recently conducted before Arbitrator Gutman, the parties collective bargaining agreement provided a three month
In a labor arbitration hearing recently conducted before Arbitrator Gutman, the parties collective bargaining agreement provided a three month probationary period for all new hires which gave the employer
More informationRE: PSA Response to TAFE NSW claims Enterprise Agreement (updated) Further to our previous correspondence 28 July 2015, please find the amended
30 July 2015 Kerry Penton Director Workforce Engagement TAFE NSW RE: PSA Response to TAFE NSW claims Enterprise Agreement (updated) Further to our previous correspondence 28 July 2015, please find the
More informationCROWN EMPLOYEES (ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES - SALARIED STAFF) AWARD
(779) SERIAL C6506 Published 365 IG 1395, 9.5.08 CROWN EMPLOYEES (ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES - SALARIED STAFF) AWARD INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES Review of Award
More informationMOTOR CARRIER ACT REGULATIONS
c t MOTOR CARRIER ACT REGULATIONS PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this regulation, current to February 1, 2004. It is intended for information
More informationJUSTIFIED TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ALONG WITH VIOLATION OF PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE
JUSTIFIED TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ALONG WITH VIOLATION OF PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE JUSTIFIED TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT ALONG WITH VIOLATION OF PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE Publisher: JPM Janković Popović Mitić NBGP
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION CASE NO Heard at Montreal, Thursday, 15 December 1988 Concerning CANADIAN PARCEL DELIVERY.
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION CASE NO. 1864 Heard at Montreal, Thursday, 15 December 1988 Concerning CANADIAN PARCEL DELIVERY And DISPUTE: TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS UNION The issuance of a
More informationDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
DEALING WITH SECTION 197 IN BUS CONTRACTING ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 23 February 2012 1 Content Background to competitive tendering Labour issues in Bus Contracts Effect of Tender System on
More informationComponent 20 (Environmental, Technical & Operational) Agreement Article 7.1 Hours of Work Union Interpretation Guide
Component 20 (Environmental, Technical & Operational) Agreement Article 7.1 Hours of Work Union Interpretation Guide Introduction Article 7.1 of the Component 20 Agreement defines the hours of work for
More informationOverview of the Act on the Succession to Labor Contracts upon Company Split ("Labor Contract Succession Act")
Overview of the Act on the Succession to Labor Contracts upon Company Split ("Labor Contract Succession Act") Labor Contract Succession Act aims to promote the protection of workers in company splits.
More informationLABOR AGREEMENT SEASONAL MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES. For the Period: MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD. and CITY EMPLOYEES LOCAL #363
MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD and CITY EMPLOYEES LOCAL #363 LABOR AGREEMENT SEASONAL MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES For the Period: January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018 1 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
More informationNOTICE 602 OF (Govenrment Gazette 34573) CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS GUIDELINES ON MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS
NOTICE 602 OF 2011 (Govenrment Gazette 34573) CCMA GUIDELINES: MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS GUIDELINES ON MISCONDUCT ARBITRATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION IN TERMS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR868/16 In the matter between: PELINDABA WORKERS UNION obo MEMBERS Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationJersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal
Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Making a complaint under Part 5A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003: Ante-Natal, Maternity, Adoption and Parental Leave Please read this leaflet if you are
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. and KENOSHA SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS & MONITORS UNION
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC. and KENOSHA SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS & MONITORS UNION Case 6 No. 61976 Appearances: Mr. Robert K. Weber, Weber
More informationBEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between WINNEBAGO COUNTY (HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) and
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between WINNEBAGO COUNTY (HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) and WINNEBAGO COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 1903, AFSCME, AFL-CIO Case
More information